The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,

Meeting on 28 July 1997,

Having concluded its
consideration of communication No.533/1993 submitted to the Human Rights
Committee by Mr. Harold Elahie, under the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all
written information made available to it by the author of the communication,
his counsel and the State party,

Adopts the following:

VIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 5,PARAGRAPH
4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

1. The author of the
communication is Harold Elahie, a Trinidadian citizen, currently serving
four years' imprisonment with hard labour at the State Prison, Trinidad and
Tobago. He claims to be a victim of violations of his human rights by
Trinidad and Tobago, but does not invoke any provision of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author's release was scheduled
for 26 November 1996.

THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE
AUTHOR:

2.1 The author was
arrested on 6 July 1986 on charges of murder and several other offenses
(attempted murder, wounding with intent and shooting with intent). He was
brought before a magistrate and remanded in custody. On 15 October 1986, the
preliminary enquiry began; shortly afterwards, the author was told by his
attorney that the magistrate had been suspended from his duties for alleged
corruption.

2.2 The author was not
brought before another magistrate until 22 February 1988. This magistrate
continued the enquiry where it had been left in 1986. The author was
committed to stand trial on 25 May 1988, it is not clear for which offence
he was finally indicted. It appears from his letters that one of the
indictments, dated 9 July 1990, was to be heard on 18 November 1990, but
that prior to the hearing the defence filed a motion against this indictment
on the ground that it was based on an illegal committal order. According to
the author, the prosecution agreed and, on 19 March 1991, the judge quashed
the indictment and ordered a new preliminary enquiry. The defence appealed
the order, but it was apparently dismissed, since the author states: " [a]
second enquiry was concluded against me by another magistrate".

2.3 A new trial was
scheduled and on 25 March 1994, the author was sentenced to four years'
imprisonment with hard labour, after pleading guilty to a charge of
manslaughter. The State party, in its submission, observes that the author
was sentenced on 25 March 1994 for manslaughter, and that the other charges
were dropped.

2.4 The author adds that
he pleaded guilty of manslaughter, on his lawyer's advice, in order to
clarify his situation and expedite the proceedings. He further states that
his lawyer advised him not to appeal the sentence, as appeal proceedings
would take longer than the time he had left to serve.

THE COMPLAINT:

3.1 Although the author
does not invoke specific provisions of the Covenant, it transpires that he
claims to be a victim of violations of article 10 paragraph 1, of the
Covenant, on account of the conditions of his detention, and of articles 9,
paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3(c), because of undue delay in the
proceedings, as there was a seven year delay between his arrest and
detention and his conviction in 1994. He complains that he was detained for
7 years and 8 months before going to trial.

3.2 The author further
claims that he is subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in prison. In
this context, he submits that he is detained, together with four inmates, in
a small cell. They have nothing but a "piece of sponge" and old newspapers
to sleep on, and food, which is not fit for human consumption, is thrown at
them "as if they were pigs". Furthermore, whenever he is visited by his
family, he is handcuffed to another prisoner. The author alleges that
whenever inmates complain to the warders about the prison conditions, they
are subjected to "the worst kind of brutality", and that they are never
permitted to see the Commissioner of Prisons.

STATE PARTY'S INFORMATION AND
OBSERVATIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS THEREON:

4. In a submission dated
20 March 1995, the State party confirms that the author has exhausted all
available domestic remedies in regard to his complaint about the procedure
adopted at the preliminary enquiry. It further concedes that the author has
exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his complaints about prison
conditions.

THE COMMITTEE'S ADMISSIBILITY
DECISION:

5. During its 55th
session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It
noted that the State party conceded that the author had exhausted available
domestic remedies, and observed that with respect to the author's complaint
that he was not treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person while in detention, he had substantiated this
claim for it to be considered on its merits.

6.1 The Committee further
considered that the author had sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of
admissibility, that the delay in bringing him to trial and his continued
detention throughout this period, without the benefit of bail and the time
already served not having been taken into account, might raise issues under
article 9, paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant, which
needed to be examined on the merits.

6.2 On 12 October 1995,
the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much
as it appeared to raise issues under article 10, paragraph 1; 9, paragraph
3, and 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant.

FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED
FROM THE STATE PARTY:

7.1 In a further
submission on admissibility received after the adoption of the admissibility
decision the State party, had stated that on 19 March 1991, the author's
original indictment has been quashed on the ground that: "it was founded
upon a committal which was void, illegal, of no effect, and ultra vires the
Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquires ) Act". The judge ordered that the
indictment be quashed, and that a new preliminary enquiry, be commenced de
novo.

7.2 The result of the new
preliminary inquiry was that the author was committed to stand trial for
murder, attempted murder, wounding with intent and shooting with intent. At
the trial in the Assize's court, the author pleaded guilty to manslaughter
and on 25 March 1994, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment with hard
labor.

EXAMINATION OF THE MERITS:

8.1 The Committee has
considered the communication in the light of all the information provided by
the parties as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
It notes with concern that, following the transmittal of the Committee's
decision on admissibility, the State party has provided no further
information. The Committee recalls that it is implicit in article 4,
paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that a State party examine in good
faith all allegations brought against it, and that it provide the Committee
with all the information at its disposal. In the light of the failure of the
State party to cooperate with the Committee on the matter before it, despite
a reminder being sent on 11 March 1997, due weight must be given to the
author's allegations, to extent that they have been substantiated.

8.2 The Committee notes
that the information before it shows that the author was arrested on 6 July
1986, that shortly after the preliminary enquiry began, the magistrate to
whom the case was assigned was suspended and that the author was not brought
before a new magistrate until 22 February 1988. He was committed to stand
trial on 25 May 1988. A constitutional motion was filed, on 1 November 1990;
resulting in the author's indictment being quashed and a new preliminary
enquiry being ordered, on 19 March 1991. The author was convicted of
manslaughter on 25 March 1994. This chronology reveals that the author was
in detention for 7 years and 8 months before being sentenced on a plea of
guilty of manslaughter. The author received a sentence of four years of
imprisonment with hard labour which would appear to have been taken into
account the time he had already served. Nevertheless, the Committee
considers that, a period of 7 years and 8 months between the author's arrest
and the start of the trial against him, does in the absence of any adequate
explanations from the State party which would explain the delay, amount to a
violation of articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the
Covenant, since the trial against a person kept in detention was neither
instituted nor completed within a reasonable time and since there were undue
delays in the trial itself.

8.3 With regard to the
author's allegations of conditions of detention and ill-treatment, the
Committee notes that the State party has not offered any information to
refute the author's allegations. Due weight must therefore be given to the
author's allegation that he only had "a piece of sponge and old newspapers"
to sleep on, "food not fit for human consumption" given to him, and that he
was treated with brutality by the warders whenever complaints were made. In
the Committee's view, the author was not treated with humanity and respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person, in violation of article 10,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

9. The Human Rights
Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view
that the facts before it disclose violations of articles 10, paragraph 1; 9,
paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant.

10. Pursuant to article 2,
paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the author is entitled to an effective
remedy, including compensation for the ill-treatment suffered and the undue
delays in the adjudication of his case. The Committee reaffirms the
obligation to treat individuals deprived of their liberty with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person. The State party is under an
obligation to ensure that similar events do not occur in the future.

11. Bearing in mind, that
by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has
recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has
been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of
the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized
in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a
violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the
State party, within ninety days, information about the measures taken to
give effect to the Committee's Views.